Doc Mercola is at it again – spreading fear and misinformation. Claiming a scientific position when in fact, his extremist posts about GMOs are quite the opposite. I subscribe to his emails – for entertainment mostly. Though I delete the vast majority of the emails, every now and then I open one up, as I did today, and found this link to an article. I am posting the blood syringes poking the tomato as well, the picture accompanying the article – a common anti-GMO meme that is so laughably NOT what GMOs are. The hook in my inbox was quite misleading as well. It said: Beware: These 10 Food Companies Are Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

Admittedly, there are things Mercola posts that are true – the well-documented benefits of high intensity exercise (known as high intensity interval training, or HIIT) for example. Consider this article published on the Science Daily website way back in 2010. Granted, Mercola has published extensively about HIIT. But to find truth on his website you really have to work at it. I doubt most people are willing to put in that kind of time and research.

Generally, Mercola is extremely anti-medical establishment, and I go so far as to say believe anything he says at your own risk – and likely peril. I actually considered stopping my mammograms back in the day when I believed in Mercola’s snake oil. He also claims that over half our diets should be made up of saturated fats.

Really? I almost bought that one too – no supportive citations sought. I believed anything in those days. The new Julee K googles subjects and includes ‘science’ as a search term. It’s amazing what different links show up with just one little added word – like this short Harvard School of Public Health article – clearly advising a moderate consumption of saturated fats based on scientific evidence.

Now I take the time to find peer-reviewed evidence to back up all the anecdotal claims made on the anything-goes new Wild West called the internet.

OK – back to GMOs.

Crop breeding technology, which is the broader category that a ‘food GMO’ falls into, is exciting! It is promising, full of possibilities and has the potential to solve many worldwide food-growing problems like pests and drought. There are many choices, many ways to get it done. We are entering a new age of the ability to manipulate DNA and as an open-minded non-scientist, I find myself intrigued by it – not scared.

Consider all the advancements in genetics when it comes to medicine. Do the GMO haters realize that drugs as commonplace and inexpensive as insulin would be impossible without genetic engineering? We are certainly reluctant to criticize or even be fearful of biological advancements when they cure cancer, right? Read about British baby Layla Richards. Given these life-saving, gene-altering miracles, why does gene-altering crop technology scare us so much?

The bottom line for me is this: good technology of any kind is not to be feared and even if it is feared, it shall not be stopped. Knowledge can’t be unlearned.

Though I haven’t posted in awhile, I am still passionate about spreading the real truth about GMOs and letting my story be known.

My blog tells the story – post by post – about how a person can go from believing that GMOs are dangerous and should be banned to realizing that there is much value and potential in transgenic technology and genetic engineering in general and that it can and will change the world – not just in the realm of food, but medicine and more.

I recently discovered a cooking teacher and food writer who has written an impressive amount on the topic of GMOs – in a short time. Julie Kelly is a bright, refreshing, relatively new voice for science – profoundly aware, never having planned to speak favorably about GMOs and yet couldn’t keep silent about the topic. Best of all, I believe she understands to perfection the potential of genetic engineering.

Having just entered the world of GMOs a year ago, she has been prolific in reporting about it. I am most impressed.

~Julee K/Sleuth4Health

Below is a list of some of her other articles on the topic: I have not read all of these and they may not represent how I feel about a certain topic within the realm of the broader GMO topic, but I’m sure I agree with most of what she says. I do admit that I am a frequent customer of Chipotle – for the sole reason that I love the taste of their food and I feel that it is a healthier fast food alternative than, say, a Big Mac.

Another (extremely) benevolent GMO

Greg was my big brother, and he left this world four years ago. He died from a malignant brain tumor that looked like an octopus just inside his left ear, a tumor that declared war on his body. Specifically, his tumor was a glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) which is a very late stage, nasty glioma, also known as astrocytoma grade IV. He died scarcely 18 months after diagnosis. He was 56 and otherwise healthy, in the prime of his life really. During those precious final 18 months, he endured two craniotomies, multiple radiation blasts and a round or two of chemotherapy.

Last week I watched a segment on 60 Minutes that blew me away – so much so that I felt happy, excited and sad all at the same time. It would appear that a few people were recently completely cured of their glioblastomas.

Is natural always a good thing?

Everyone has heard of chemotherapy and radiation as common cancer treatments. But there is a big, bad new kid on the block: immunotherapy. A heretofore lesser utilized branch of cancer treatment, immunotherapy is now gaining momentum, fast, and biotechnology is stepping onto the stage as a major player in the therapy. And not only is it cutting edge transgenesis at work here, but a much maligned virus – polio – turns out to be an ideal medium for the process.

Simply put, polio attaches to cancer cells thereby making them targets of the immune system. The virus is safe to use because, via transgenic technology, the original polio is re-engineered using the common cold virus to replace the unwanted traits of polio. This ensures that the patient receiving the treatment does not contract actual polio.

This is so cutting edge it makes my head perform pirouettes. It sounds so simple, doesn’t it? It is so simple it has only taken over a hundred years of research to get here. In other words, this is no overnight sensation. This is the result of painstaking, tireless research of generations of experts. This is the result of endless hypotheses and stabs in the dark.

With all the public hysteria flying around the use of genetic modification in crop production – the calls for labeling, cries that the technology is ‘against God’s way’, causing the proliferation of ‘frankenfoods’, ruining the planet, causing all manner of disease, not natural, and so on, with all of that I have to ask, would anyone deny a loved one the cure for cancer because it is not natural? My guess is certainly not.

There is nothing natural about mixing one virus with another inside a lab then infecting cancer cells with it so that the immune system is triggered and thereby does what it does best – kill the bad stuff. That process is simply not going to happen naturally, on its own. The bio-engineer, the scientist, the expert must intervene to initiate this miracle of man. As nature would have it, our immune system does not attack malignant tumors in our body.

A few years ago, I was of the belief that everything needed to be natural to be good and right and in line with the proper way of things. A scientist had the audacity to tell me that if left unchecked, nature’s intent was to kill me, that it is science that saves me time and again. I was so offended at the time I wanted to punch the wall, but now, I understand what was meant by that statement.

I will wind down this post by adding that there are many other immunotherapy methods and drugs out there being utilized and researched that don’t involve GMOs, and by no means is polio the only agent being looked at in those that do.

As I see it, any and all of of this is exciting! Immunotherapy is the emerging new darling in cancer research and is ushering in a new era of treatment. But before we all fill our champagne glasses, we need to remember to remain cautious. A recent article in Forbes puts the breaks on the fervor over this ‘miracle’ because of course there is a downside, but even so, I have no doubt that immunotherapy is the future of cancer treatment.

Countless, precious individuals like my brother will benefit as we get past the early stages and trials and these treatments become routine. There are even those trying to speed things up, as it were. See Accelerate Brain Cancer Cure.

I ran across this table today on facebook and the instructions that accompanied it were to share, share and share alike so I’m doing my part. Thank you to Ryan Megan for posting it.

First of all, GMOs, or better put – transgenic technology, is one of several techniques known as genetic engineering. Yet only the transgenic type is singled out for labeling and endless vilification – and unfairly so if one takes into account the information represented on this table. The first row of numbers after number of genes affected tells an interesting story that might surprise many. Have a look:

It is just such informational nuggets as this, which along the way, contributed to my transformation from being blindly against GMOs to being not only tolerant of the technology but supportive of it when appropriate.

If I were still on the fence about GMOs or transgenic technology, I’d research each one of the headings that appear beside it in the table above: hybrid, crossing species barriers, polyploids, mutation breeding. (I admit, I don’t know what polyploids are but I will find out.)

There is so much more to genetic engineering than GMOs – even the name. I’ve gathered, mostly through social media, that scientists tire of the term “GMOs” and prefer transgenic.

The study of genetics in general, one of biology’s multitudes of branches, has exploded in recent decades – and will continue to do so. It is an exciting time!

And as has not changed in centuries, there always seems to be fear and mistrust hovering around new discoveries and new technology.

~Julee K/Sleuth4Health

~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

Note: If I have misrepresented any scientific fact, let me know in the comments. I am all about nothing but the facts, please, and I try my best but sometimes I get it wrong.

It has been well documented here on this blog how I went from being an anti-GMO activist, completely opposed to transgenic technology as it relates to crops and food, to supporting it and calling out the very activists whom I once revered.

In the Sleuth4Health chronicles that describe events leading up to and just after my metamorphosis, I pinpoint how it was science itself that changed my mind. I corresponded with biologists, saw real data, read pro-science media, etc., and in combination, this all served to fry me up a juicy GMOs-are-really-pretty-cool burger – with all the fixings. And yes, I ate it.

I have not wavered since. I am on the side of evidence, of knowledge, of rational thought. Scientists are my friends and I wish I could pat them all on the back. I want to tell them that some of us out here in the public actually appreciate that they devoted decades of their lives to their work – and the effort it took to allow them to do that, like, for example, earning advanced degrees.

But there was another very big reason I switched sides.

The very people I had aligned myself with were the very people who drove me away. The obstinate, willful refusal by the anti-GMO crowd to consider evidence that supported any view different from their own was a huge turn off. I saw this time and again. The activists reminded me of five-year-olds who plug their ears when they’re being told something they don’t want to hear. This tendency did not, in the least, impress me, even from the very beginning of my activism.

And one place where this stubborn ignorance was rampant was with an outfit called Moms Across America (MAA), a nation-wide activist group that centers around their website and facebook community page. I’m not going to single out any individuals in this post, but just point to the organization as a whole. My sole intent is to describe how things that were said on this website heavily influenced my decision to become a turncoat.

I am open-minded and curious by nature. And not only do I have this overwhelming urge to be right, I bloody well hate to be wrong, about anything. I came to accept with conviction the widespread scientific consensus that transgenic technology had much to offer crops, that its benefits outweighed its risks, and that it had been needlessly vilified. Mostly what I realized was that anti-GMO activists fight against something they both don’t understand and flat refuse to try to understand.

As my indoctrination into the science world was occurring, e.g., coming to understand that beliefs and facts are not the same thing, what was to become and remain an information debacle appeared on the MAA website. It was a so-called report titled “Stunning Corn Comparison” which allegedly made comparisons between non-GMO corn and GMO corn.

To someone not trained in how to evaluate data and whether or not it is valid, it came across shocking. Here is just a sample of what the report claimed:

But come to find out, the data couldn’t possibly have been about corn, or possibly anything biological. For one thing, there was a lack of the basic element carbon in the GMO corn data – which is impossible. What startled me even more though was that apparently anyone who passed a biology 101 class their freshman year of college would have known this.

Oh Jesus, I thought. Are we really that stupid?

MAA was way out of their league. When this was pointed out to them, they refused to back down and chose instead to keep this ridiculous report on their website and as the link above proves, it remains there today.

London McCabe

Fast forward to recent events. A tragic incident occured in my home state of Oregon and I was again reminded of the lengths that activists like MAA will take to further their agenda. A mother suffering from mental illness threw her son, six-year-old London McCabe (right), off of an iconic bridge in Newport (seen above), a coastal bay town. The news was difficult to process, especially for Oregonians. The picturesque bridge towering over the bay, the little boy who died so young…

I had actually forgotten all about MAA until I ran across this facebook post and then I got angry.

The picture of the boy was directly above these words, about twice the size of what you see here. I couldn’t believe it.

To use such a tragedy to shock, to scare, to emotionally manipulate people while you’re cramming an agenda down their throat is abhorrent. According to anti-GMO ‘pundits’, and I use that term loosely, just about every physical disease on the planet is attributable to GMOs, and now, apparently, so is mental illness.

Data anyone? Citation please?

Anti-GMO activism has become like a religion. Too many beliefs. Too few facts.

Julee K/Sleuth4Health

Update 11/17/2014: The correct acronym for Moms Across America is MAA.

The meta-analysis reveals robust evidence of GM crop benefits for farmers in developed and developing countries. Such evidence may help to gradually increase public trust in this technology.

-A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops/Klümper, Qaim

Recently on twitter I was made fun of, called ridiculous, a music teacher of all things, most certainly out of her element because of my post objecting to the ‘Right to Know’ ads and their misleading fear-mongering. Here is the tweet, minus the person’s name who was behind it. Suffice it to say I believe this person means well, is educated and loves the environment.

Today, I’m ridiculously proud to be an Oregonian. We were one of the few states to stay blue at both the state and national level. (Yes, the tweeter above may be surprised to know that I am a registered democrat, passionate about the environment and women’s issues, but admittedly right-leaning when it comes to money and business. And no, I don’t get money from Monsanto or any other similar company for my posts.)

We legalized pot and as of July 1, I can have up to eight ounces on premises. Truth be known, eight ounces seems excessive but I still voted yes on that one and I will likely purchase some ganja when it becomes legal.

But the thing I’m happiest about is that we didn’t cave to the fear-mongers and vote yes on 92, the GMO labeling initiative. After watching months of ads that claimed things like “these crops have been engineered for heavy pesticide use” and “would you rather eat this (yellow corn seeds in hand) or this?” (blue, engineered corn seeds in a ziploc) – I have had enough!

It’s over and rationality prevailed.

Coincidentally, the article posted below was published on November 3, just two days before the vote was fully counted and 92 went down. I just love the irony.

More pesticides because of GMOs you say, right-to-knowers? Farmers are slaves to Monsanto you say, Right-to-Knowers? Think again. Please, please read this public access, peer-reviewed mega-study in its entirety. The authors are German, European, from a land where labeling exists, and the promise of biotechnology is held back because of irrational fears.

Just because Europe labels GMOs doesn’t make it a good idea.

For the record, I am all for labels if they educate people about the benefits and limitations of GMOs. But the agenda behind all of the Right to Know campaigns is simply to vilify them.

Julee K/Sleuth4Health

A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops

Wilhelm Klümper,

Matin Qaim

Published: November 03, 2014

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Abstract

Background

Despite the rapid adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops by farmers in many countries, controversies about this technology continue. Uncertainty about GM crop impacts is one reason for widespread public suspicion.

Objective

We carry out a meta-analysis of the agronomic and economic impacts of GM crops to consolidate the evidence.

Data Sources

Original studies for inclusion were identified through keyword searches in ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, EconLit, and AgEcon Search.

Study Eligibility Criteria

Studies were included when they build on primary data from farm surveys or field trials anywhere in the world, and when they report impacts of GM soybean, maize, or cotton on crop yields, pesticide use, and/or farmer profits. In total, 147 original studies were included.

Synthesis Methods

Analysis of mean impacts and meta-regressions to examine factors that influence outcomes.

Results

On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

Limitations

Several of the original studies did not report sample sizes and measures of variance.

Conclusion

The meta-analysis reveals robust evidence of GM crop benefits for farmers in developed and developing countries. Such evidence may help to gradually increase public trust in this technology.

Introduction

Despite the rapid adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops by farmers in many countries, public controversies about the risks and benefits continue [1]–[4]. Numerous independent science academies and regulatory bodies have reviewed the evidence about risks, concluding that commercialized GM crops are safe for human consumption and the environment [5]–[7]. There are also plenty of studies showing that GM crops cause benefits in terms of higher yields and cost savings in agricultural production [8]–[12], and welfare gains among adopting farm households [13]–[15]. However, some argue that the evidence about impacts is mixed and that studies showing large benefits may have problems with the data and methods used [16]–[18]. Uncertainty about GM crop impacts is one reason for the widespread public suspicion towards this technology. We have carried out a meta-analysis that may help to consolidate the evidence.

While earlier reviews of GM crop impacts exist [19]–[22], our approach adds to the knowledge in two important ways. First, we include more recent studies into the meta-analysis. In the emerging literature on GM crop impacts, new studies are published continuously, broadening the geographical area covered, the methods used, and the type of outcome variables considered. For instance, in addition to other impacts we analyze effects of GM crop adoption on pesticide quantity, which previous meta-analyses could not because of the limited number of observations for this particular outcome variable. Second, we go beyond average impacts and use meta-regressions to explain impact heterogeneity and test for possible biases.

Our meta-analysis concentrates on the most important GM crops, including herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybean, maize, and cotton, as well as insect-resistant (IR) maize and cotton. For these crops, a sufficiently large number of original impact studies have been published to estimate meaningful average effect sizes. We estimate mean impacts of GM crop adoption on crop yield, pesticide quantity, pesticide cost, total production cost, and farmer profit. Furthermore, we analyze several factors that may influence outcomes, such as geographic location, modified crop trait, and type of data and methods used in the original studies.

Seidler appears in a fear-monger pro-labeling commercial (below) holding a ziploc bag of blue GMO corn seeds, then holds pretty non-GMO yellow corn seeds in the palm of his hand. He says he has concerns about GMO safety and asks if you’d like to know which kind of seeds you’re eating. Then he says the companies that produce these blue seeds also once put out agent orange and said it was safe (this agent orange deal is a whole other topic that is vastly misunderstood and used to ignite fear and distrust). So, we should have labeling. But he’s really saying let’s stamp out GMOs for good. It’s soooo obvious.

Let me be clear: I wouldn’t mind a labeling initiative if it just meant that people simply want to know more about the food they are eating. I believe in labels that educate people. Read this post. We could start with the fact that GMOs aren’t ingredients. Sugar, fat, sodium, xantham gum = ingredients. GMOs = breeding process. But the Right to Know is not that, and it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Seidler’s ad should convince anyone of that. The campaign wants to rid our planet of GMOs. Seidler and Hansen (see below) – the activists behind the ads – have made that abundantly clear in many of their other media appearances.

It is widely repeated on this blog that I am not a scientist. But watching Seidler’s commercial and another Seidler video below I am APPALLED at how this so-called scientist represents transgenic technology. He uses fear, emotion, scary sounding words and histrionics to get his anti-GMO points across. Ever watch a run-of-the-mill scientist talk about GMOs? They don’t use emotion because they don’t have to. Facts, supported by data, can stand up on their own. I’ve gotten to where I have zero tolerance for emotion in a scientific presentation. It doesn’t belong there. If a speaker starts getting preachy about any sort of facts, I will immediately dismiss the facts as suspect. There is simply no place for dogmatic persuasion in science. Just the data please.

Here is another video featuring Seidler. It’s called The Truth About GMOs. Chuckle chuckle. Notice how he uses emotion to make his points.

He does a good job of explaining that GMOs, recombinant, transgenic technology – are all the same. But he fails to mention that the technology is one breeding technique among many breeding techniques,

Read this post to learn exactly how the Bt mechanism works in crops. The reality is far from how Seidler presents it in his video, with his emphasis on the words toxic and toxins. Why doesn’t he also say that organic farmers use Bt toxin topically as well?

Read this post about how a cotton farmer feels about Bt cotton and purchasing Monsanto seeds. Read about the huge decrease in insecticides realized because of these seeds. Read this series about how a cross section of farmers feel about GMOs.

Oregonians are getting their ballots in the mail. Voting is going to happen in the coming weeks. Because Oregon is such a hotbed for woo I fear this measure will pass and then the worms from the can will begin crawling around. I mean, Oregon already owns the dubious distinction of having the highest percentage of un-vaccinated school-age kids.

I’m going to make a very bold statement that will offend a lot of my left-leaning brethren but here goes: Liberals entrenched in anti-vax and anti-GMO woo are reaching peak stupid right about now and have no right to criticize conservatives who doubt the reality of climate change. You’re all equally wrong!

I will add that Michael Hansen, the consumer union guy in the ad below, who claims to be unbiased is a full-on anti-GMO activist just as Seidler is.